Diamond Staples v. State of Indiana ( 2014 )

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 30 2014, 9:58 am
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
DOUGLAS R. LONG GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
LYUBOV GORE
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
DIAMOND STAPLES, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 48A04-1403-CR-118
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MADISON CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Angela Warner Sims, Judge
Cause No. 48C01-1105-FC-983
June 30, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAKER, Judge
Appellant-defendant Diamond Staples appeals the trial court’s revocation of her
probation and argues that the trial court erred when it reinstated the remainder of her
suspended sentence. Staples contends that the mitigating factors she presented at her
sanctions hearing merited a lesser sanction than the 365 days imposed by the trial court.
In light of Staples’s failure to adhere to the requirements of her probation, we cannot say
that the trial court erred in revoking her probation or in ordering her to serve the
remainder of her suspended sentence. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed.
FACTS
On May 31, 2011, Staples was charged with class C felony forgery, class D felony
resisting law enforcement, class D felony battery resulting in bodily injury, and class B
misdemeanor disorderly conduct. On April 16, 2012, the State filed an amended
information charging Staples with class D felony theft. On May 14, 2012, pursuant to a
plea agreement, Staples pleaded guilty to battery resulting in bodily injury and theft. In
exchange, the other counts against her were dismissed. Staples was sentenced to two
years for battery and two years for theft to be served concurrently. Staples received 154
days of actual credit time, and she was placed on probation for 422 days.
A notice of violation of probation was filed on August 6, 2012. The notice stated
that Staples submitted a urine sample, which tested positive for the presence of
Cannabinoids. A summons was issued for Staples to appear in court on September 10,
2
2012. She failed to appear, and a warrant was issued for her arrest. Staples turned
herself in on August 5, 2013.
An evidentiary hearing on the probation violation was held on October 8, 2013.
The trial court found that Staples had violated her probation by failing to abstain from the
use of illicit drugs. As a result, the trial court ordered her to obtain a substance abuse
evaluation within thirty days. The trial court also deferred the sanctions hearing to
December 3, 2013, so that Staples could obtain the substance abuse evaluation and
comply with treatment and recommendations.
On December 3, 2013, Staples failed to appear for her sanctions hearing, and
another warrant was issued for her arrest. She was arrested on February 18, 2014.
Staples admitted that she knew about the hearing on December 3 but said that she was
unable to attend because she did not have a job or means of transportation. She also
admitted that she never went to the substance abuse evaluation, and the record shows that
she had not reported for alcohol and drug screenings since October 2013. The trial court
ordered Staples to serve the 365 days of her previously suspended sentence at the
Department of Correction (DOC).
Staples now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
The decision to revoke probation is within the sole discretion of the trial court.
Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 440 (Ind. 2007). On appeal, we review that decision for
an abuse of discretion. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). We consider
3
only evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing the evidence or
judging the credibility of the witnesses. Id. If we find there is substantial evidence of
probative value to support the trial court’s decision that a defendant violated the terms of
her probation, this Court will affirm the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. Id. at
639-40.
Here, Staples admitted to violating the terms of her probation. Appellant’s App.
p.8. Her probation was predicated on her ability to fulfill certain requirements, which
included abstaining from the use of illicit drugs. Id. at 53. In light of Staples’s failure to
comply with these requirements and her subsequent failure to appear for both the
substance abuse evaluation and her sanctions hearing, the trial court properly concluded
that she was incapable of or refused to adhere to the conditions of her probation. Staples
argues that she could not attend the hearing or substance abuse evaluation because she
lacked a job and means of transportation, but we find this argument unavailing because
finding and maintaining employment was also a condition of her probation. Id. As a
result, the trial court acted well within its discretion in ordering Staples to serve the
remainder of her time in the DOC.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.1
BARNES, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
1
We deem moot Staples’s verified motion to expedite decision, filed on June 3, 2014, because this
decision has been rendered as soon as practicable.
4